Page 4339 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the financial predicament people are in at the moment. That is why the government are proceeding this way. But, yes, we have to recoup some costs. We need to recoup some costs. The only way we can do that is through selling those clean blocks and a component of that having extra development rights.
We will support the amendment Mr Hanson has moved because, with the exception of the insertion of about five words, it is essentially our words. We designed a scheme based on fairness, a scheme based on safety and a scheme based on getting rid of the asbestos legacy now and forever. They are our words, and we will support them.
We will work individually with home owners. I am aware of a number of cases where people have come forward and sat down with the task force, explained their individual circumstance and desire to return to their land and have been provided with the advice on how to do that, and they believe they are able to do that. That flexibility is there, but it requires that conversation. It requires examining whether land rent is an option for them. It requires a decision about whether downsizing on the block is an option for them. All of these are options that can and should be considered. There are people that can and will afford the land at the rate they choose to buy it back at. Without knowing what the housing market is doing, as the Treasurer alluded to, it is very difficult to predict in two and three and four years what the market rate of that land will be. That is why the fairest way to do it is to provide the market rate of the home and land as of 28 October, when the scheme was announced.
I would also say that, in terms of my inbox, I have received more letters from people thanking the government for the approach they have taken and the task force for the work they have done. We know that probably by Christmas 400 valuations will be complete. We know that with the funds the Assembly has just agreed to, probably 28 homes will be sold and transactions complete by Christmas. We know nearly 700 people have opted in to the valuation scheme.
In relation to this myth that Mr Hanson now perpetuates that I am holding a gun to people’s heads, I refer members back to the evidence I gave to the committee where I was pressed: “What will you do? What will you do if people do not take up this offer?” I said, “I don’t want to go down that path.” I have listened to speeches in this place today where everyone on the opposition side has stood up and said, “Yes, demolition of every house should occur.” So we all agree every house needs to be demolished, even though there are a number of recommendations in the committee report that would argue that that might not be the case.
Mrs Dunne: No, it doesn’t.
MS GALLAGHER: Well, there are recommendations that say people should be able to stay for the length of time that is convenient for them. But that is not the position that we have taken. The scheme allows for the financial payment to flow to families and then for their situation to be negotiated with the task force. I am not holding a gun to anyone’s head but, if at the end of the day people refuse to have these homes demolished, there will have to be another response. There has to be. But you have a look at the words I put to the committee about how we will work individually with people to make sure we do not get to that point, the effort that will go in and the fact
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video